Whether we could get even votes or states is another matter altogether. Whether the federal government has the "right" to determine who it enters into contracts with is what is being discussed.
The proposed amendment would not interfere with the individual states recognition or lack of recognition of homosexual “marriage”. It would simply state, as far as the federal government was concerned, legal marriage would consist of one man and one woman, regardless of what an specific state recognizes.
I am not sure who you think should have the power to set federal law. If not the federal government, then who? Keep in mind, this amendment would not interfere with a states recognition of a homosexual “marriage” if the state so chooses to recognize it.
I am not sure who you think should have the power to set federal law. If not the federal government, then who?
The core issue is that marriage requires a license. It is a privileged practice that requires statutory license...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right. The Supreme Court has already interpreted that marriage can be regulated by statute:
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
The federal government does have the right to regulate the privileged practice of marriage... and it would only require a statute... but an Amendment would make it unassailable...